Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV46595, Date: 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46595    Hearing Date: March 20, 2023    Dept: 55

BISHOP v. OUTDOORSY, INC.,                                                    20STCV46595

Hearing Date:  3/20/23,  Dept. 55.

#7:   APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF BOBBI S. SELL.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Defendant VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., & VOLKSWAGEN AG.

RP:  

Summary

On 12/4/20, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that they suffered serious injuries, due to an automobile collision on July 22, 2018, because Defendant MICHAEL BISHOP negligently operated a 1987 Volkswagen Vanagon in Yosemite National Park, when he became distracted by a spider in the vehicle, which caused him to go up a hill and into a tree, and then the rear seat became detached from the frame.

The causes of action are:

1. NEGLIGENCE

2. PRODUCT LIABILITY (NEGLIGENCE)

3. PRODUCT LIABILITY (STRICT LIABILITY).

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order giving permission to appear pro hac vice, on grounds including the following:

·         Bobbi S. Sell is a member in good standing in the State Bar of Missouri.

·         Bobbi S. Sell has never been suspended, disbarred or resigned as a result of a disciplinary charge, investigation, or proceeding from the practice of law in any jurisdiction. (Sell Decl., ¶ 3.)

·         In the preceding two years, she has not filed following applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the state of California. (Sell Decl., ¶ 4.)

·         Bobbi S. Sell is not a resident of the State of California, is not regularly employed in the State of California, and is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. (Sell Decl., ¶ 5.)

·         The State Bar fee was paid.

Tentative Ruling

The application is granted.

The Court finds that it sufficiently complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40, including the applicant’s declaration addressing the rule elements. 

Additionally, no reason appears to deny the application, including because of the absence of any opposition.

A judge’s determination of whether to grant an application to appear pro hac vice is evaluated under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 706, 711; United States Golf Ass'n v. Arroyo Software Corp. (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 607, 624;  Magee v. Sup. Ct. (1973) 8 Cal.3d 949, 953-54.  There is no statement of the limit of court discretion in ruling on applications to appear pro hac vice in civil cases.  Sheller v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1713.